Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Survey topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Acton resident presents town-priorities survey, warns of sampling bias
Summary
Eric Heals, a resident and associate member of the Transportation Advisory Committee, presented a self‑conducted town spending/priorities survey and urged caution when interpreting informal polls.
Eric Heals, a resident and associate member of the Transportation Advisory Committee, presented a self‑conducted town spending/priorities survey and urged caution when interpreting informal polls.
Heals said he sent 4,035 emails between Aug. 22 and Sept. 21, that 1,798 were opened (a 44.6 percent open rate), 236 clicked links (5.8 percent) and 86 surveys were completed (2.1 percent). He described how non-random samples can skew results and used classroom examples such as movie-theater audiences and subway riders to illustrate self-selection bias. He calculated a margin of error of 0.42 score points for his instrument and described a 2.42 "break-even" score: items scoring above 2.42 have statistically supported public backing, those below do not.
Heals read his ranked findings: the top items above the break-even included "advanced town meeting participation" (2.98), the Main Street intersection/complete-streets improvements (2.79), and approving the final stormwater infrastructure plan (2.76). He said other items, including Town Hall HVAC, a DPW project and a communications position, scored lower and in some cases showed wide respondent neutrality.
He closed by urging that the town ask residents and listen: "people want to be asked, and then they want to be able to speak and have somebody listen," he told the committee, and he offered to share slides and data with committee members.
Why it matters: public input and survey data are frequently cited in local planning and budget prioritization. Heals cautioned that survey methodology and sampling frame materially affect whether results can be generalized to the broader town population.
Committee reaction: members thanked Heals and noted his effort; some noted that the self-selection bias he described likely affected other informal surveys such as town-meeting polling. Fred called the presentation "super interesting" and suggested professional randomized sampling would be costly but more accurate.
